| Literature DB >> 35658053 |
Ting Li1, Jing-Ya Li2.
Abstract
Over the past four decades, China's economy has experienced tremendous economic growth but also a widening urban-rural income gap. Given the dilemma of the urban-rural income gap in China explained by neoclassical equilibrium theory, this paper attempts to provide a new theoretical explanation for the large-income gap between urban and rural areas in China. We select data from 30 provinces(cities) in China over the period from 2006 to 2017 as a sample to investigate whether and how the degree of farmland financial innovation narrows the urban-rural income gap. The results show that the coefficient for farmland financial innovation is significantly negative at the 1% level, signifying that financial innovation can narrow the urban-rural income gap in China. The mediation effect test provides evidence that farmland financial innovation narrows the urban-rural income gap by promoting the permanent migration of the labor force and upgrading the industrial structure. Our results indicate that the government should promote various forms of farmland financial innovation, establish rural property rights transaction system and free farmers from deep farmer-land attachment to realize permanent labor migration.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35658053 PMCID: PMC9165774 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269503
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Evaluation index system of farmland financial innovation in China.
| First level index | Second level index | Third level index |
|---|---|---|
| Permeability of farmland financial services | Geographic dimension | Number of agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 square kilometers |
| Number of employees in agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 square kilometers | ||
| Total agricultural financial assets per 10,000 square kilometers | ||
| Demographic dimension | Number of agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 people | |
| Number of employees in agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 people | ||
| Total agricultural financial assets per 10,000 people | ||
| Use effectiveness of farmland financial services | Population dimension | Per capita agricultural loans balance |
| Income dimension | The proportion of per capita agricultural loans to per capita income |
The weight of third-level indices of farmland financial innovation.
| Index | Weight |
|---|---|
| Number of agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 square kilometers | 0.0880 |
| Number of employees in agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 square kilometers | 0.2356 |
| Total agricultural financial assets per 10,000 square kilometers | 0.1887 |
| Number of agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 people | 0.0420 |
| Number of employees in agricultural financial institutions per 10,000 people | 0.1654 |
| Total agricultural financial assets per 10,000 people | 0.1164 |
| Per capita agricultural loans balance | 0.0906 |
| The proportion of per capita agricultural loans to per capita income | 0.0773 |
Variable definition and constructions.
| Variable | Variable definition | Constructions |
|---|---|---|
|
| farmland financial innovation | see above |
|
| industrial structure | The ratio of production value of tertiary industry over total GDP |
|
| urban-rural income gap | The ratio of per capita disposable income of urban residents over per capita net income of rural residents |
|
| degree of dependence on foreign trade | The ratio of the total export-import volume over GDP |
|
| rural Engel coefficient | The ratio of expenditure on necessities for rural residents over total expenditure |
|
| rural per capita fixed telephone number | Number of telephones per 10000 rural residents |
|
| labor migration | see above |
|
| urbanization rate | The ratio of urban resident population over total population |
Summary statistics for main variables.
| Variable | Mean | Std.Dev. | Min | P25 | Median | P75 | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.857 | 0.544 | 1.845 | 2.444 | 2.766 | 3.141 | 4.594 |
|
| 0.081 | 0.109 | 0.004 | 0.032 | 0.051 | 0.078 | 0.742 |
|
| 0.428 | 0.1 | 0.256 | 0.363 | 0.406 | 0.468 | 0.806 |
|
| 0.382 | 0.068 | 0.247 | 0.33 | 0.377 | 0.429 | 0.56 |
|
| 0.309 | 0.374 | 0.017 | 0.091 | 0.14 | 0.357 | 1.721 |
|
| 0.131 | 0.115 | 0.008 | 0.065 | 0.100 | 0.151 | 0.789 |
|
| 4.53 | 1.37 | -1.833 | 3.763 | 4.953 | 5.496 | 6.505 |
|
| 9.409 | 0.944 | 6.475 | 8.889 | 9.529 | 10.046 | 11.404 |
Notes: The Table shows the descriptive statistics of the main variables in this research.
Results of the baseline regression.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| -4.131** | -2.596 | -0.165 | -1.991 | -2.139 | -2.105 |
| (-2.09) | (-1.25) | (-0.17) | (-1.70) | (-1.96) | (-4.01) | |
|
| -2.044 | -0.282 | -0.434 | -0.510 | -0.531 | |
| (-2.46) | (-0.66) | (-1.00) | (-1.19) | (-1.72) | ||
|
| 4.149 | 3.826 | 3.928 | 3.941 | ||
| (9.42) | (8.88) | (8.80) | (14.71) | |||
|
| -0.712 | -0.722 | -0.721 | |||
| (-2.52) | (-2.55) | (-5.88) | ||||
|
| -0.417 | -0.419 | ||||
| (-0.98) | (-1.42) | |||||
|
| -0.005 | |||||
| (-0.26) | ||||||
|
| 3.192 | 3.944 | 1.407 | 1.964 | 2.027 | 2.053 |
| (19.91) | (16.62) | (5.89) | (6.60) | (6.79) | (8.81) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.219 | 0.282 | 0.598 | 0.635 | 0.638 | 0.638 | |
|
| 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
Notes:
*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% confidence level respectively. The numbers in the parenthesis are corresponding t-values. IE means individual effect.
Results of the transmission channels.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6.271 | -2.105 | 0.389 | -2.105 |
| (2.10) | (-1.98) | (4.23) | (-4.01) | |
|
| -3.824 | -0.531 | -0.531 | |
| (-1.67) | (-1.25) | (-1.72) | ||
|
| 2.344 | 3.941 | -0.207 | 3.941 |
| (1.90) | (8.92) | (-4.42) | (14.71) | |
|
| 0.175 | -0.721 | -0.035 | -0.721 |
| (0.49) | (-2.55) | (-1.57) | (-5.88) | |
|
| -0.361 | -0.419 | -0.172 | -0.419 |
| (-0.14) | (-0.97) | (-3.31) | (-1.42) | |
|
| -0.005 | -0.017 | -0.005 | |
| (-0.16) | (-4.79) | (-0.26) | ||
| _cons | 4.758 | 2.053 | 0.587 | 2.053 |
| (4.83) | (5.62) | (22.23) | (8.81) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.145 | 0.638 | 0.473 | 0.638 | |
|
| 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
Notes:
*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% confidence level respectively. The numbers in the parenthesis are corresponding t-values. IE means individual effect.
Robustness test: Controlling macroeconomic factors.
|
| (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| -1.411 | -1.423 |
| (-2.72) | (-2.62) | |
|
| -0.397 | -0.357 |
| (-1.34) | (-1.17) | |
|
| 3.084 | 3.593 |
| (10.27) | (12.98) | |
|
| -0.768 | -0.584 |
| (-6.52) | (-4.67) | |
|
| -0.506* | -0.480* |
| (-1.79) | (-1.66) | |
|
| -0.015 | -0.012 |
| (-0.74) | (-0.59) | |
|
| 3.576 | |
| (5.49) | ||
|
| 1.056 | |
| (3.92) | ||
|
| 2.009 | 1.888 |
| (8.99) | (8.14) | |
|
| YES | YES |
| 0.669 | 0.654 | |
| N | 360 | 360 |
Notes:
*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% confidence level respectively. The numbers in the parenthesis are corresponding t-values. IE means individual effect.
Robustness test: Increasing possible missing variables.
|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| -4.131 | -2.596 | -0.165 | -1.991 | -2.139 | -2.105 | -0.988 | -1.159 |
| (-2.09) | (-1.25) | (-0.17) | (-1.70) | (-1.96) | (-4.01) | (-1.82) | (-2.28) | |
|
| -2.044** | -0.282 | -0.434 | -0.510 | -0.531 | -0.454 | -0.219 | |
| (-2.46) | (-0.66) | (-1.00) | (-1.19) | (-1.72) | (-1.54) | (-0.79) | ||
|
| 4.149 | 3.826 | 3.928 | 3.941 | 3.075 | 1.434 | ||
| (9.42) | (8.88) | (8.80) | (14.71) | (10.23) | (3.88) | |||
|
| -0.712 | -0.722 | -0.721 | -0.673 | -0.525 | |||
| (-2.52) | (-2.55) | (-5.88) | (-5.72) | (-4.68) | ||||
|
| -0.417 | -0.419 | -0.523 | -0.578 | ||||
| (-0.98) | (-1.42) | (-1.85) | (-2.19) | |||||
|
| -0.005 | -0.012 | 0.014 | |||||
| (-0.26) | (-0.61) | (0.76) | ||||||
|
| -0.200 | -0.041 | ||||||
| (-5.52) | (-0.99) | |||||||
|
| -3.406 | |||||||
| (-6.86) | ||||||||
|
| 3.192 | 3.944 | 1.407 | 1.964 | 2.027 | 2.053 | 4.046 | 4.850 |
| (19.91) | (16.62) | (5.89) | (6.60) | (6.79) | (8.81) | (9.54) | (11.72) | |
|
| YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.219 | 0.282 | 0.598 | 0.635 | 0.638 | 0.638 | 0.669 | 0.711 | |
| N | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
Notes:
*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% confidence level respectively. The numbers in the parenthesis are corresponding t-values. IE means individual effect.
Robustness test: Alternative metrology method.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| -3.603 | -2.222 | -0.332 | -1.207 | -1.211 | -1.171 |
| (-8.95) | (-4.71) | (-0.89) | (-2.99) | (-2.99) | (-2.87) | |
|
| -1.944 | -0.268 | -0.268 | -0.280 | -0.332 | |
| (-5.22) | (-0.90) | (-0.94) | (-0.97) | (-1.11) | ||
|
| 4.082 | 4.062 | 4.086 | 4.108 | ||
| (16.47) | (16.95) | (16.04) | (16.00) | |||
|
| -0.523 | -0.519 | -0.526 | |||
| (-5.50) | (-5.37) | (-5.43) | ||||
|
| -0.075 | -0.086 | ||||
| (-0.28) | (-0.32) | |||||
|
| -0.013 | |||||
| (-0.65) | ||||||
|
| 3.149 | 3.870 | 1.441 | 1.681 | 1.686 | 1.757 |
| (32.99) | (22.90) | (7.28) | (8.42) | (8.39) | (7.69) | |
|
| 0.486 | 0.502 | 0.425 | 0.414 | 0.417 | 0.416 |
| (7.25) | (7.32) | (7.59) | (7.17) | (7.03) | (7.07) | |
|
| 0.258 | 0.247 | 0.185 | 0.177 | 0.177 | 0.177 |
| (25.59) | (25.60) | (25.68) | (25.54) | (25.49) | (25.50) | |
|
| 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
Notes:
*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% confidence level respectively. The numbers in the parenthesis are corresponding t-values.